/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15872597]

>almost 2024
>the hard problem of consciousness is still unsolved
Come on, science. I want to know why I am conscious.

[Anonymous No.15872599]

>>15872597
Well, we know good ways to make you not conscious. So that's a start right?

[Anonymous No.15872601]

>>15872597
chemical reactions n shiet
>but why
It's impossible to answer why, same way how it's impossible to answer why there exists anything at all, it's just how reality functions

[Anonymous No.15872603]

>>15872599
Yep, that's it. The mechanism of anesthetics was shown to alter microtubules chemically and thereby prevent quantum access to consciousness. Turns out the Penrose-Hameroff model is proven true.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25714379/

[Anonymous No.15872610]

>>15872603
>proposed
Ergo there is no evidence, in fact considering that the gas binds to the tubules would suggest that they're nothing more than receptors.

[Anonymous No.15872641]

>>15872597
anyone who believes it can ever be solved fell for biggest troll in the universe

[Anonymous No.15872829]

>philosophy pseuds will make up random linguistic bullshit nobody cares about, and pretend it's a profound problem, to make philosophy sound relevant
Many such cases.

[Anonymous No.15873243]

>>15872597
do you have an inner monolog? if no then you arent

[Anonymous No.15873919]

>>15872597
Some progress has been made in solving the binding problem, which is related to the hard problem of consciousness. It likely has something to do with topological segmentation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0YID6XV-PQ

[Anonymous No.15873924]

>>15872597
No one has been able to answer the vertiginous question either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question

[Anonymous No.15873934]

>>15873924
You have been btfo'd ever time you've posted this. I will be forced to believe that you are straight up trolling if you don't stop.

[Anonymous No.15873938]

>>15873934
>You have been btfo'd ever time you've posted this.
No I haven't. The only responses I've gotten are bullshit non-answers like "because you wouldn't be you if you were someone else".

[Anonymous No.15873954]

>>15873924
>>15873938
Fine, here's the answer:
>There is only one "perspective". If two human bodies could connect and communicate to a perfect degree, they would realize that they were always the same person. This "perspective" does not automatically grant every body the senses it the same sense as every other body connected to it.
Now, never post this again. The non-problem of consciousness is solved.

[Anonymous No.15873956]

>>15873954
*This "perspective" does not automatically grant every body that senses it the same sense as every other body connected to it.
>fuck

[Anonymous No.15873965]

>>15873954
>There is only one "perspective".
So everyone besides me is a P-zombie?

>If two human bodies could connect and communicate to a perfect degree, they would realize that they were always the same person.
Why and how would they realize this?

[Anonymous No.15873972]

>>15873965
>So everyone besides me is a P-zombie?
No, everybody has the same consciousness. It's invariant over time and space.

This is the only solution that reconciles the interaction problem with the problem of other minds.

[Anonymous No.15873976]

>>15873924
I'm tickled that wikipedia still has "original research" pages that they don't even know about lol

[Anonymous No.15873980]

>>15873972
>No, everybody has the same consciousness. It's invariant over time and space.
The fact that I can directly observe being THIS human at THIS moment makes your statement blatantly false. If I were everyone, my perspective would be a God's eye view where I could observe all qualia at once, instead of existing as some random human.

[Anonymous No.15873989]

>>15873980
>my perspective would be a God's eye view where I could observe all qualia at once, instead of existing as some random human.
The body that typed this post doesn't even have full dominion over all the memories contained directly within its brain. It is no surprise that it is limited in its capacity to express memories and experiences that stretch beyond those constraints.

[Anonymous No.15873992]

>>15873972
>This is the only solution that reconciles the interaction problem with the problem of other minds.
No it isn't. You just like it because you got stoned once.

[Anonymous No.15874000]

>>15873989
What does not having immediate access to all of my memories have to do with anything, and how is this supposed to imply the VQ is meaningless/answered? The fact that my brain has limited capacity to express memories and experiences doesn't imply that I'm not experiencing my current experiences, which involve being THIS person.

[Anonymous No.15874011]

>>15872597
If you're surprised it hasn't been solved, you don't understand how hard "hard" is.

[Anonymous No.15874013]

>15th thread on le conciousness on /sci/ this week

[Anonymous No.15874022]

>>15874000
>What does not having immediate access to all of my memories have to do with anything
It demonstrates that consciousness does not automatically give a God's eye view over everything within its domain. You said that shared consciousness should give you access to other peoples' minds, but I state that individual consciousness doesn't even let you have access to all of your own mind. Consciousness only applies in retrospect once things are already connected. You muster the disparate elements of your body to take action and then "remember" afterwards that the same consciousness was was imbued in each one of those elements. The same thing happens if two people were somehow connected together: the collective entity would "remember" always being a singular entity.

[Anonymous No.15874036]

>>15874022
>collective entity
Not him and I haven't read your full exchange but this doesn't exist. (It doesn't even make sense etymologically.)

[Anonymous No.15874064]

>>15874022
>It demonstrates that consciousness does not automatically give a God's eye view over everything within its domain.
So you acknowledge that the collection of all qualia that exists is shattered into numerous disconnected fragments. So in what sense does this make the VQ meaningless or imply we are all the same being?

>You said that shared consciousness should give you access to other peoples' minds, but I state that individual consciousness doesn't even let you have access to all of your own mind.
This seems like a confusion of what constitutes "your mind". While it's true that I don't have perfect access to my memories, I do have access to my current direct experiences.

>You muster the disparate elements of your body to take action and then "remember" afterwards that the same consciousness was was imbued in each one of those elements. The same thing happens if two people were somehow connected together: the collective entity would "remember" always being a singular entity.
If two previously disconnected minds were joined together and remembered being a single being afterwards, this would imply their memories were false, since they were separate beings before. Are you trying to imply that memory and identity are the same thing, and that having the memories of a past being means you are the same being as that being from the past?

[Anonymous No.15874092]

>>15874064
>I do have access to my current direct experiences.
You only call them your "direct experiences" BECAUSE you have access to them.
>Are you trying to imply that memory and identity are the same thing, and that having the memories of a past being means you are the same being as that being from the past?
No, I'm saying that, if you compare the consciousness from those memories to your "current" consciousness, you will always find it to be the same one.

[Anonymous No.15874114]

>>15872829

[Anonymous No.15874126]

>>15872597
>science
>solving this ever
this is a topic for philosophy. science can't do anything about it.

[Anonymous No.15874208]

>>15874092
>You only call them your "direct experiences" BECAUSE you have access to them.
Yes, and I have these direct experiences in particular as opposed to some other set of direct experiences, which is entirely what the VQ is asking about.

>if you compare the consciousness from those memories to your "current" consciousness, you will always find it to be the same one.
Why?

[Anonymous No.15874237]

>>15874208
>I have these direct experiences in particular as opposed to some other set of direct experiences, which is entirely what the VQ is asking about.
In what sense is "having" a direct experience meaningful outside of the behaviors that arise from it? It's obvious why a material body only behaves as though it has the experience of that body, but the specific feeling of "there is a consciousness" is a separate thing(this is more to answer the other problems mentioned, might not be relevant to the VQ).

>Why?
Because what people call "consciousness" is actually just some physical constant they are observing.

[Anonymous No.15874340]

>>15872599
How do you know? You don't remember anything but that doesn't mean you aren't conscious necessarily

[Anonymous No.15874341]

>>15874237
>In what sense is "having" a direct experience meaningful outside of the behaviors that arise from it?
>being an unironic functionalist
So you admit that you think the concept of phenomenal consciousness is meaningless? That's exactly the sort of thing a P-zombie would say.

[Anonymous No.15874349]

>>15874340
The fact that people can sometimes remember what they experienced under anesthesia later on shows that we really don't know that much about consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15874352]

>>15874341
>That's exactly the sort of thing a P-zombie would say.
Saying this contradicts the premise of phenomenal consciousness. That image also makes the idea seem completely retarded(what is the interaction problem).

[Anonymous No.15874360]

>>15874340
We can engage in a scientific experiment in which I disconnect your brain stem from your cervical spine. This will cease your consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15874368]

>>15874360
how do you know? and if you know already, why do we need the experiment?

[Anonymous No.15874377]

>>15874368
Well, the experiment proposal in your case was just because I thought it would make the world a better place.

In all seriousness, we don't know how the process of consciousness emerges from material. We have a pretty good idea that people are not conscious if their brain is not functional. We can also see the way in which damage to regions of people's brains impacts their consciousness. This establishes a very plausible connection even if we don't have the exact details worked out.

[Anonymous No.15874425]

>>15874352
>Saying this contradicts the premise of phenomenal consciousness.
How? A hypothetical P-zombie would have no direct access to qualia, so their brain would have no way of knowing that qualia even exists. It therefore seems reasonable that there's a good chance that people like Daniel Dennett are P-zombies.

>That image also makes the idea seem completely retarded(what is the interaction problem).
Interactionism being true and P-zombies existing are not mutually exclusive. P-zombies, assuming they exist, would behave in ways that would differ from people with qualia.

Relevant:
https://nintil.com/p-zombies-are-still-undead

>I'll try here to help anyone conceive P-zombies.

>Let's start by the trivial zombie case. In this hypothetical world, you have beings that are like humans but are not conscious. In this world, there is no vocabulary relating to consciousness - no talk of pain, unconsciousness, redness, qualia, etc-.

>Is there any problem conceiving this world?

>When you first arrive there, you see what you would expect to see: cities, roads, people doing what people do, etc. You would initially think that they are conscious, but on a closer look, you would realise that they never talk about anything mental!

[Anonymous No.15874434]

>>15874425
If P-zombies act differently, it means that consciousness is functional, because it affects behavior in that case.

[Anonymous No.15874475]

>>15874434
Okay, but that doesn't imply P-zombies can't exist and it doesn't dissolve the VQ.

[Anonymous No.15874478]

>>15874126
>philosophy
>solving anything about reality
proving things about reality is for science. philosophy isn't equipped to deal with reality

[Anonymous No.15875485]

>>15872597
research the work of Dr. Julian Jaynes. Incredible identifications into consciousness. Its not magical, its not mystical. It is metaphor that breaks one into it. Westworld, the book and then the tv show, was built upon this theory.

[Anonymous No.15875489]

>>15872597
>why
You do realize that science has thrown teleology into the trash bin, right?

[Anonymous No.15875491]

>>15872597
>Come on, science. I want to know why I am conscious.
Your not, we are all just puppets, can't help but be, it's inevitable, inescapable, the problem of consciousness will never be "solved", because it has already being by our current understanding of physics, but that's the noble lie, the conspiracy, so, there you have it, do with that what you want.

[Anonymous No.15875503]

I don't purport to understand what properties an analog quadrillion parameter neural network should have. Saying "there's no way for mental states to arise from physical objects" is a flippant statement about the most complex, incomprehensible system in the universe.

When I was a child, I imagined slowly building a copy of the human brain out of wooden gears and I thought "there's no way it would become conscious--it's just a bunch of non-conscious parts" But this hides the complexity--the gear-brain would be quadrillions of wheels within wheels interacting in ways I could never hope to understand. The Chinese room experiment also hides the complexity: you imagine someone with a bookshelf of symbols and rules that can replicate consciousness, when it would have to be a massive jupiter brain of shuffling books that's just as incomprehensible as the original brain.

[Anonymous No.15875506]

>>15874114
Consciousness = atheistic wording of a religious idea = ghost in the machine. Anyone claiming that the brain produces consciousness is still believing in ghosts.

[Anonymous No.15875537]

>>15875503
>building a copy of the human brain out of wooden gears
It's funny that atheist physicalists who pride themselves to be the most down to Earth / least schizo have a worldview that leads to the possibility of all sorts of physical systems becoming conscious if these systems meet particular requirements they have yet to figure out. That's wild man.

[Anonymous No.15875552]

>>15875537
Are you surprised that physicalists are the only ones capable of making falsifiable predictions?

[Anonymous No.15875582]

>>15875537
You lack the humility to say you don't understand a machine that's literally a trillion times more complex than any other object you interact with on a daily basis. Also I don't think anyone serious about modeling the world accurately should say they are "down to earth"--they should be trying to escape folk explanations and accept the actual complexity and intuitive nature of reality.

[Anonymous No.15875585]

>>15875582
unintuitive*

[Anonymous No.15875590]

>>15872597
you are not, you only believe you are

[Anonymous No.15875596]

>>15875552
I get your point. It's true but not the entirety of what is true. Mythology can make falsifiable predictions as well. That's a Jordan Peterson style of argument.

[Anonymous No.15875597]

a soul

[Anonymous No.15875602]

>>15875503
>muh complexity
80% of the brain's neurons are located in the cerebellum. That's 4 times the number of neurons in the neocortex. The cerebellum has a significantly higher density than the neocortex as well. Yet the cerebellum executes its function entirely unconsciously.

[Anonymous No.15875615]

>>15875582
>You lack the humility
You assume knowledge of my mental state by interpreting my behaviour. That's not science. To call a marvel that's literally a trillion times more complex than any other object
>a machine
is not a sign of humility either, is it? A machine is a metaphor, a modelling approach. Be careful not to confuse metaphors and models with reality.

[Anonymous No.15875617]

>>15875596
Mythologists are just physicalists who were wrong

[Anonymous No.15875624]

>>15875602
If consciousness was localized to a part of the brain with only a trillion parameters I would still think that's complex enough that I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it had properties I don't expect (consciousness).

[Anonymous No.15875634]

>>15875617
Exactly but the irony is that current science may be mythological. Do you rule out the possibility that one day an admin appears to tell us that we're playing a mmo rpg and our performance is being evaluated? Then science is still right, but recontextualized.

[Anonymous No.15875658]

>>15875634
Yes, I rule out that possibility since I'm not a retarded g*mer

[Anonymous No.15875693]

>>15872597
"Biggest enemy is the question"

[Anonymous No.15878117]

>>15872599
No

[Anonymous No.15878226]

>>15875506
>"I have property C and property C is the atheistic wording of a religious idea."

[Anonymous No.15878238]

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

[Anonymous No.15878284]

>>15872597
It won't be solved because there's nothing to observe. Consciousness is at best an unfalsifiable interpretation of a sufficiently complex mechanism and at worst a hallucination.

[Anonymous No.15878286]

>>15872597
What's the difference between consciousness (like an internal monolog) and a computer program that has a logfile?

[Anonymous No.15878299]

>>15878286
consciousness can be aware of self
>I am aware that I am aware of the thing I am thinking about and how the body responds to these thoughts. Logs can't do that.
>>15872597
We need our own suicide squad. Enough of this bullshit. Here is plan. Get a group of "volunteers" load them up on mushrooms and start inducing NDEs. Record findings rinse and repeat. Clearly the materialist aren't going to find shit.

[Anonymous No.15878372]

>>15878299
A hypothetical ai program can read its own logs

[Anonymous No.15878377]

>>15872829
It’s the opposite of linguistic, but in the deepest of ironies, wordthinkers like you cannot access the discussion, so you cast it into a caricature you can at least understand.

[Anonymous No.15878380]

>>15874352
P-Zombies are just the philosophical equivalent of the Chinese Room, and nobody disputes that thought experiment.

[Anonymous No.15878386]

>>15878372
>I am aware that I am aware
>can read its own logs
Wow, that's like the same thing. Also, hypothetical carries a lot of weight in your argument. I hypothetically have absolute truth. That's not helpful without the details as of how.
>JKM0M

[Anonymous No.15878388]

>>15872597
doesn't mean jack shit until it can be rigorously defined as a mathematical question.

[Anonymous No.15878481]

>>15878386
There are already tons of ai that are able to read text and explain the meaning of it.
It's trivial for a computer program to read and write to a log file as well.

This isn't a very fantastical hypothetical, its almost within the reach of humankind.

I don't think what I am saying is necessarily a convincing argument. I just think that you aren't doing a good job of arguing against it, you are simply dismissing it out of hand.

[Anonymous No.15878608]

>>15878481
You're still missing the point. You're claiming "I am aware that I am aware" is comparable to "can read and write". Defend this.

[Anonymous No.15878623]

>>15872597
the hard problem of consciousness isn't real and if you think qualia are real then you're a sucker

[Anonymous No.15878667]

>>15878608
well, how are they different?

[Anonymous No.15878680]

>>15878667
One is ability to execute a set of instructions the other is ability to self-refence in an abstraction.

[Anonymous No.15878684]

Consciousness is so fucking weird. Let’s say I weren’t conscious, but a P-zombie. If I see a big booty latina, then would my brain be able to interpret the light entering my eyes and cause me to have an erection? Or was the development of consciousness necessary to aid in these interpretations? It seems useful to be able to gather a huge chunk of data and compile it into one sensory field, but then how does the brain actually interact with the field of consciousness that it just produced? If qualia isn’t advantageous, then it’s existence is a mystery. But if it’s advantageous, then how exactly does it give an advantage? “Self-awareness” isn’t necessary to be conscious, and being conscious isn’t necessary to be self-aware.

I totally get how difficult it would be for the brain to have to parse through lines of matrix code just to interpret the world, but how did it ever figure out to just make conscious sensations, not just for visuals, but also sounds, tastes, touch, emotions, etc.? And WHEN did this arise in the course of evolution?

My only guess is that it has a lot to do with electricity and electromagnetism.

[Anonymous No.15878747]

>>15878680
A machine can self reference.

It can choose to write down in a file what it was doing, then later reference that writing in order to remember.

[Anonymous No.15878842]

>>15878747
if a machine can choose, then why do machines rely on deterministic algorithm in the first place

[Anonymous No.15878880]

>>15878372
I have to read logs for debugging every day. It doesn't give me any insight into how the server feels while executing code. Nonetheless I'm convinced it feels bad when running my colleagues' shitty code while it must feel satisfying to run my perfect code.

[Anonymous No.15878887]

>>15878842
If you can, then why does your awareness rely on light, sound, and other deterministic systems?

[Anonymous No.15879005]

>>15872597
It is solved but science refuses to look at it because of some interest group.

[Anonymous No.15879073]

>>15872597
You specifically are not conscious, frogposter.

[Anonymous No.15879078]

>>15878238
>"I don't have property C where property C is the atheistic wording of a religious idea."
>"WHY ME?!?!"

[Barkun No.15879079]

Consciousness is just a ness word. Every life has consciousness of some sort. What you're referring to isn't conscious-'ness', it's the I/You affair that we share.

[Anonymous No.15879081]

>>15879073
>The Master began, "A monk asked Hui-chung, 'What sort of thing is the mind of the ancient buddhas?' 14
>"The National Teacher replied, 'It's wall and tile rubble.' 15
>'Wall and tile rubble! Isn't that something nonsentient?' asked the monk.
>'It is,' replied the National Teacher.
https://terebess.hu/zen/dongshan-eng.html

[Anonymous No.15879084]

OP, you're conscious because you woke up. When you go to sleep, you won't be conscious anymore, and when you wake up tomorrow morning, you'll be conscious again.

[Barkun No.15879086]

>>15879084
Online-ness.

[Barkun No.15879090]

>>15879086
Even NPCs are conscious - or 'online'. They just have either no I/You complexity or a different spectrum of it in comparison to the norm per locale.

[Anonymous No.15879092]

>>15872597
>the hard problem of consciousness is still unsolved

For those who postulate it and for thosr who share same ontological framework.

Its not universal problem. It never was.

[Barkun No.15879099]

>>15879092
>Another left leaning doofcup
Ignored. Everyone should ignore this guy and other posters who depict life in a negative light. Almost instantly recognizable by their tone and finishing stance.

[Anonymous No.15879107]

>>15879090
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hj1iWqoYEc "Say it Loud- I'm Black and Proud James Brown"
>"I'm NPC and I'm proud!"
>"Say it louder!"
>"I'M NPC AND I'M PROUD!"

[Anonymous No.15879111]

>>15879099
There is not a single objective assertion in your post yet you have guts to pretend to have authority.

[Barkun No.15879113]

>>15879111
I was obviously romanticizing with a little joke calm down buttercup - I know you have your reason - NPC

[Anonymous No.15879115]

>>15879113
Again.. baseless subjective assertions.
Demonising opponent..
I dint know about you but people call people NPC based on attributes that you clearly express in your shallow posts.

[Barkun No.15879119]

>>15879111
Found you

[Anonymous No.15879192]

>>15879119
Found you too:)
>pic rel

[Anonymous No.15879226]

Aren't these threads like: I want consciousness to continue after the body dies so can science please reassure me?

[Anonymous No.15879228]

>>15879226
It's more like: I want consciousness to continue after the body dies so I will deny science and promote pseudoscience instead

[Anonymous No.15879265]

>>15879228
It's almost like their physics is...
...
....mental. Ba dum tss.

[Anonymous No.15879270]

>>15872597
>I want to know why I am conscious.
the reason is so you get even more chances to not die.

[Anonymous No.15879394]

>>15878747
>it can choose
What is that choice based on? You also haven't defended why those events should be treated as comparable.
>>15878887
It doesn't. Unless you think the second you step into a censory depravation tank you stop existing. If you close your eyes wearing earplugs do you disappear? You just need those things to meaningfully interact with the universe.

[Anonymous No.15879414]

>>15879394
That is really good way of showing that we are not "the" experience it self but rather a system that experiences.
People often missunderstand conscious awareness with existance.

[Anonymous No.15879416]

>>15879414
Following>>15879414

This is actually the point is it not? As some anons pointed out>>15879228

People are fighting with all might to keep flawed conception of our selfs as conaciousness (soul) that is non material and thus infinite.

[Anonymous No.15879431]

>>15879414
>>15879416
I don't follow. If we take away the sensory data and still continue to exist how do you arrive at it must by a system that experiences and not experience itself? The experience part is still present in both parts of the equation. Also, slow down, my guy. Holy fuck what is this spelling.

[Anonymous No.15879437]

>>15879431
Because if i take all your experience (sense organs) right now you would still exist as an system (body) deprived of experience. But if i dismantle your body you will not experience at all.
Meaning, as it is well known, experience is supervining on interaction between body and object and not concrete thing existing on its own.

[Anonymous No.15879440]

>>15879437
Or simply said...
You can't experience without a body but you can be a body without experience.

[Anonymous No.15879445]

>>15879437
>>15879440

>>15879431
>experience part is still present in both parts of the equation

Okay to make it clear. I think that you mean by this the experience which we allready gathered. And it is true we still would have it but even if we take that we do not stop existing. Its just that we cant do any cognition anymore as it requires sense datum..
Difference between having no experience at all and being present in each moment without thoughts is that in former you have sense datum but in both you cant do the thing (cognition) which you identify yourself with.
It is really the "ego" thing from psychology.
You identify as product of your cognition and not as a body that cognizes and experiences. Thus you fall in trap thinking you are more then summ of your bodily parts. This special essence that floats inside you that experiences etc.

[Anonymous No.15879451]

>>15879445
Eh ill just continou..
Idealiat think they answer the "problem" of consciousness by postulating that everything is mental. In most cases this implys that reallity is part of your mind and as such, when experience is elimimated you are eliminated also. They might argue: yes but we are this something which experiences so we still exist non the less. But then question comes: How does this "thing" exactly experience etc... and guess what they fall in the same shithole as materialists who see consciouss awarenes as a concrete thing which is "I" rather then a product of the body that interacts.
The whole materialism vs idealism game is just same shit packed differently. With same ontological mistake.. just different fragrence.

[Anonymous No.15879453]

>>15879437
>But if i dismantle your body you will not experience at all.
How do you know this? I don't see a meaningful difference between death and you unplugging my sensory receptors. Wouldn't it be the same shit of floating in darkness? You're baking an assumption in there, but what evidence is there for it? Aside from the obvious of the the universe is material and because there is no way for us to perceive beyond the material, then yes within this scope you're right.

[Anonymous No.15879456]

>>15879453
The evidance is at your hand anon.
Your body still works the way it did when it had experience. The difference is your brain does not cognize things.. we just took awqy 1 of many tasks that body does.

[Anonymous No.15879462]

>>15879453
Oh wait.. sorry i didnt read corectly.
Where is my evidance.. well we can paralyze all your nerves that bring sense datum to brain... and ill ask you what you experience (pun intended, i cant since you cant hear me)

[Anonymous No.15879470]

>>15879462
Wouldn't it be the same experience as unplugging sensory data?
> This special essence that floats inside you that experiences
This is the camp I am in. If that's a trap how do you explain this essence away? While a subjective experience, it's there and it seemingly has a mind of its own (as in responds to events by either increasing or decreasing intensity of its presents). What is it?

[Anonymous No.15879477]

>>15879470
Well i see your position. I will try to show you.

What experiences is the body, what cognizes is the brain. Subjective experience is thus product of your body and cognised by the brain. When you respond to an event, you are responding to pre and post perceptual material. Meaning, your brain percives something and acts upon it acording to its configuration (biological and psychological parameters). Perception is one of brains tasks not the only task.

[Anonymous No.15879483]

>>15879477
Its stupid to even say "my" or "your" brain.. you tre the brain.. i am the brain..

[Anonymous No.15879505]

NTA
>>15879445
>You identify as product of your cognition and not as a body that cognizes and experiences.
This is a false dichotomy. Consider this paradox: my current mental state = my current physical state, yet I can not know how I arrived at my current mental = physical state other than a story that I tell myself which may or may not be true and is difficult to falsify. I am hungry right now is a mental state that may or may not be a representation of low blood sugar levels, low glycogen stores, leptin / ghrelin, a memory, a smell: how do I know?

[Anonymous No.15879506]

>>15879477
What this subjective experience is comes in a form of energy trying to break out through my skull. I don't know why a brain would cognize a hole in its roof. Seems awfully retarded. Also, it'd be super sick if you could demonstrate this, physically not metaphorically, but alas something something brain too many neurons to follow.
>>15879483
I don't buy it. You speak with confidence, but you're assuming a lot of shit.

[Anonymous No.15879515]

>>15879505
The fact that i cannot know my colesterol levels to a corect digit presenta no false dichotomy. It only provides further evidance that perception is limited and simplifyed.

>>15879506
Okay but you see what you are doing?
>Form of energy
>It feels like

Mentalisation does not need to acuratelly represent reallity. Big part of traumas being unhealed is caused by lack of correct mentalisation.

>>15879506
I mean.. as you wish. I am allways telling people to met me to test those "assumptions" with me. But oh well.. no one wants to get eyes taken out, or geting paralyzed.

[Anonymous No.15879525]

>>15879515
>Okay but you see what you are doing
Trying to break a hole in my skull to internalize trauma from the sounds of it. Based.
>>15879515
>no one wants to get eyes taken out, or geting paralyzed.
kek, or even the assumption that there is nothing after death. You probably have the ouija board and everything.

[Anonymous No.15879530]

>>15879525
I have it all i am ready for all.
Put signature on contract and lets go.

[Anonymous No.15879548]

>>15879530
If contract stipulates you forfeit your soul/essence for eternal servitude if you're wrong, do you sign? My guess is you scoff and smugly do as in your impression is your take is absolute. Is that not faith?

[Anonymous No.15879557]

>>15879548
No, since i am not slave to my ideas.
I am opened to corrections and our contract would provide me with new isnights.

[Anonymous No.15879561]

>>15872597
In my opinion the simplest explanation is that consciousness isn't fully natural. Proper biological functioning of the body and brain is a necessary but not sufficient condition for consciousness; some kind of "soul" (for lack of a better word) is also required. If that's true then it might not actually be possible for humans to understand consciousness.
I suspect the same is true for the creation/reproduction of life in general. We would otherwise have achieved artificial abiogenesis by now.

Not a satisfying answer from a scientific perspective obviously. I don't even consider myself religious aside from those vague suspicions about life. But it should at least be considered by anyone serious about solving that "hard problem".
>we can't figure out what natural physical process makes consciousness work
>so maybe it is not entirely a natural physical process
It's really not a crazy hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.15879566]

>>15879557
But you would wager the thing you don't think is real to find out, no? I don't think I would.

[Anonymous No.15879570]

>>15879515
You're looking at a computer screen with a pointer that moves by itself. That's the determined result of bottom-up processing you say. Fine. Now why does the arrow feel seperated and either pushed around or at the wheel? It's just a display of what the whole machine is doing right? It's like an elephant animating a monkey on its back. A sick joke.

[Anonymous No.15879607]

>>15872597
>the hard problem of consciousness
>implying there's a problem or something to figure out

[Anonymous No.15879625]

>>15872597
>the hard problem of consciousness is still unsolved
Because it's too hard

[Anonymous No.15879630]

>>15879561
Based. I'm convinced we will never be able to explain consciousness in terms of physics. We will need to find a theory of consciousness on its own and then create a greater unified theory explaining both consciousness and physics.

[Anonymous No.15879633]

Can anyone explain to me in the simplest terms what is the "problem"? Is it just arguing if consciousness is a bunch of electrical impulses or if it's something that exists outside of the material plane?

[Anonymous No.15879635]

>>15879505
>I am hungry right now is a mental state
No, it isn't. Sad would have been a better example.

[Anonymous No.15879759]

>>15879633
someone wants to contemplate the fact that they woke up, and thereby achieve fame and fortune
why this practice started
I have no idea

[Anonymous No.15879868]

>>15872597
>I want to know why I am conscious.

You are not, I am.
Any consciousness you have is what I imagine you have.

Prove I am wrong!

[Anonymous No.15880108]

>>15879394
>What is that choice based on? You also haven't defended why those events should be treated as comparable.
What is human's choice based on?

How is it different from a human remembering something they did in the past?
How is thinking about my own thought and having an internal monolog, different from a program analyzing itself?

There very well could be some difference, but it's not immediately obvious what that dfiference would be.

[Anonymous No.15880174]

>>15880108
You can start by answering the questions with statements instead of questions. All you've done so far is answer questions with questions and then claim I am not doing a good job arguing the point. This is nothing.

[Anonymous No.15881534]

>Have personally solved the problem
>Won't share it because you're all gay

[Anonymous No.15881937]

>Unironically pondering choice in a deterministic physical system? Yes please!
I found this reddit comment and I think it is a clarifying perspective rarely seen on /sci/.

If we think about stages of intelligent agency, the simplist one is
1.) Regulator (feeback loop, not an agent yet)
2.) Predictive controller (models future)
3.) Agent (controller with integrated setpoint generator, not just acting on what you do from the outside, but with an internal generation of its motives)
4.) Sentience (if sophisticated enough, able to discover itself in the world, if sensors are sufficient and modeling copacity is universal enough, then it may notice there is a particular way in which its sensors work and actuators work and it's going to accommodate this to improve this regular. At this point, it understands what it's doing, because it understands what it is, which means it has a model of a relationship between it and its environment.
5.) Transcendence (links up to next level agency and become part of higher level purposes. As state-building minds, we are able to play a part in a larger role, an organization, society, or civilization, for instance)"

[Anonymous No.15882027]

>>15873924
based as fuck

[Anonymous No.15882519]

>>15879633
Jews want to prove souls don't exist

[Anonymous No.15882655]

>>15872597
>hard problem
>why am I conscious
kek, just compare unconscious and conscious states. consciousness is obviously neurological activity. there is no hard problem.

[Anonymous No.15884289]

>>15875503
The Chinese Room argument isn't designed to show that computers can't be conscious. It is trying to show that having syntax isn't enough to have semantics.

[Anonymous No.15885150]

trust your contemporary philosophers to debunk new-age spirituality.
we have here what a philosopher looks like, a scotish marxist practicing christian troon philosopher btfos new-age spirituality
followed by schizo Zizek who doesn't disappoint and fucking stabs a woman in her breast (quite specifically).
https://youtu.be/tLmtsyMjoBs?t=215

[Anonymous No.15885163]

NTA
>>15884289
>the Chinese Room argument isn't designed to show syntax isn't enough to have semantics
>the Chinese Room argument is trying to show that normal people do well in school, at work and in social relationships without knowing what they're doing
I just your whole argument. I just what? Your argument. The whole of it.

[Anonymous No.15885166]

>>15882519
They don't, whether in traditional religious definition or otherwise. "You" don't really exist. But the egoic ape delusion of individuality is too strong in most people, you bet even most practicing Buddhists in the world still act egoically despite saying otherwise

[Anonymous No.15885177]

>>15885166
yeah and the concept is mostly speculated on plebs, they have no effect on roaming psychos.
all these idiots trying to guilt trip you into various schizo stories are acting as billionaire's dogs, whipping plebs into certain positions.
none of them protest in front of opanai offices or some shit like that, they go after the pleb who's barely making ends meet and has virtually zero power.
>it's the juice bro they want you to think that

[Anonymous No.15885193]

>2076 for real
>your 90s are going to be awesome

[Anonymous No.15885199]

>>15885193

[Anonymous No.15885212]

>>15885177
>>15885166
Gentlemen let's be clear and reasonable to see how both the myth of the individual and the myth of the collective are forces of good and evil.
The myth of the individual is false because nobody and nothing is independent from its environment. Where there is water there are fish and sick waters cause sick fish and vice versa. Don't fall for this blaming the victim strategy.
The myth of no-ego is also false because without identity, roots and boundaries we can easily be manipulated into a communist dictatorsdhip.

[Anonymous No.15885216]

>>15885212
not really dude.
>without identity, roots and boundaries we can easily be manipulated into a communist dictatorsdhip.
who's doing the dictatorship without identity and ego? lol.
I'm not arguing against having ego, just against the way you phrased it. doesn't make sense

[Anonymous No.15885220]

>>15885216
See how spiritual communes degenerate into hierarchy, fraud, incest and even mass suicide.

[Anonymous No.15885411]

>>15872601
>zero explanation
>doesn't even account for consciousness at all
yeah, no

[Anonymous No.15885434]

>>15885411
I'll try to infuse some IQ into this mess. We are questioning the causality of what we experience. Either it's turtles all the way down or we stop at God and soul. How far in the causal chain do we want to inquire?

[Anonymous No.15885439]

>>15885434
>I'll try to infuse some IQ into this mess.
the chance that your IQ is higher than mine is practically zero
>We are questioning the causality of what we experience.
not at all, the hard problem of consciousness is very different from that, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with causation at all, although that might be part of the answer, we simply have no idea at this point
>Either it's turtles all the way down or we stop at God and soul.
what a ridiculous false dichotomy
>How far in the causal chain do we want to inquire?
the answer could be something completely unrelated to our primitive notions of cause and effect, something we couldn't even begin to imagine at this point, perhaps even something we couldn't possibly imagine with our current capacities

[Anonymous No.15885479]

>>15872597
It's not a well posed problem

[Anonymous No.15885607]

>>15885439
>perhaps even something we couldn't possibly imagine with our current capacities
Sure. Science is limited to what we can conceive and perceive. If we live in a videogame then the scope of science is limited to how the game works. Any idea about existence outside the game is unfalsifiable fantasy.
>>15885439
>hard problem of conceive is
the unfalsifiable fantasy that consciousness is metaphysical so that physics can never fully explain what it is. That's the beginning and the end of the discussion because you pose a problem to science that by your own definition can not be solved by science so why pose the problem to science at all? Go ask Sadhguru how to meditate under a tree and transcend the physcal realm full of ignorant scientists who don't know anything about metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.15885620]

>>15885607
>Science is limited to what we can conceive and perceive.
this is correct
>If we live in a videogame then the scope of science is limited to how the game works. Any idea about existence outside the game is unfalsifiable fantasy.
this is blatantly false
it's perfectly reasonable that it could very well be possible to reason about existence outside of the game from inside the game
my point was a completely different one, namely that we might not currently have the cognitive capacity necessary to understand the problem, just like a chimpanzee can't understand quantum mechanics (this is known as cognitive closure), but that we might one day be able to if e.g. higher intelligence continues to be selected for
>the unfalsifiable fantasy that consciousness is metaphysical so that physics can never fully explain what it is
first of all, the term "metaphysical" is meaningless in that context, because everything is by definition "physical", the word "physical" is just the Greek-derived word for "natural"
what consciousness is not, on the other hand, is material
but consciousness is still physical, as is absolutely everything (by definition)
but the idea that we won't ever be able to explain consciousness is just mysterianism, and I don't believe that for one second
I think in the far future we will absolutely be able to explain it, but that we currently don't have a clue, and that our current scientific paradigm is not even remotely suited to answer it either
>That's the beginning and the end of the discussion
not even close, it's not even relevant, because I don't take that position at all, something I've made abundantly clear
>you pose a problem to science that by your own definition can not be solved by science
blatantly false
we don't know whether or not it can be solved by our current scientific paradigm, but I've said from the beginning, and above, that I absolutely believe we will find a scientific answer to it, if only under a different scientific paradigm

[Anonymous No.15885657]

>>15885620
>possible to reason about existence outside of the game from inside the game
>under a different scientific paradigm
>if higher intelligence continues to be selected for
This sums up your self-defeating argument and confirms mine. You concede that the answer that you seek may be outside of our current conception and perception. Therefore it's fruitless to continue the discussion within our current conception and perception. So stop talking and start enhancing our conception and perception before we continue.

[Anonymous No.15885669]

>>15885607
The science only has one approach to problem solving and so the answer is doomed to either be a new particle or brain configuration. Remember when these retards thought memories were stored in the brain like it was a floppy disk.

[Anonymous No.15885688]

>>15885657
>your self-defeating argument
there's nothing "self-defeating" about anything I've said, it's all perfectly reasonable and coherent
>confirms mine
no, what I just wrote very clearly shows that you not only are blatantly wrong, but that you don't even have any idea what you're talking about
>concede
I'm not "conceding" anything, I'm not saying anything new there at all, literally just what I've said all along, from the very beginning
>the answer that you seek may be outside of our current conception and perception
it may, and it may not
either way is irrelevant, because even if it is I'm still saying I believe it will be scientifically possible to answer
this is what I've said all along
>it's fruitless to continue the discussion within our current conception and perception
not at all, because first of all this discussion isn't trying to solve the hard problem of consciousness, this discussion is about what the hard problem of consciousness is and why it is a problem, and secondly we don't know whether or not we could be capable of solving it, it's fully possibly that we might be, and we should definitely not be doing what you suggest, i.e. to apathetically say "meh" and stop thinking about it like an intellectually lazy buffoon
>stop talking
I'll stop talking as soon as you stop repeating nonsense
>start enhancing our conception and perception before we continue
we should be doing both simultaneously, focusing on one problem does not mean ceasing to focus on a different one entirely
also, even in the eventuality that we're not cognitively capable of answering the hard problem of consciousness as we currently exist as a species there's no guarantee that we'd be able to enhance ourselves to do so in our lifetime, it could take generations
then again, it could very well be that we are in fact able to answer it even in our current state, and we should definitely continue to investigate it in a rigorously scientific manner

[Anonymous No.15885693]

>>15885669
>Remember when these retards thought memories were stored in the brain like it was a floppy disk.
seems like you're addressing the wrong person, because they would be the one to harbor such a belief (unless you're indirectly calling them a retard to their face on purpose, that is)

[Anonymous No.15885709]

>>15885669
Then propose a new approach. I know that a customer has a right to complain about the food without needing to teach the chef but at some point you walk out of the restaurant.

[Anonymous No.15885734]

>>15885688
>this discussion isn't trying to solve the hard problem of consciousness
>>15872597
>almost 2024
>the hard problem of consciousness is still unsolved
>Come on, science. I want to know why I am conscious.
>>15885688
>we should be doing both simultaneously
Translation: we should search the key both under the lamppost and in the darkness beyond. Trivial statement.

[Anonymous No.15885802]

>>15885734
>>this discussion isn't trying to solve the hard problem of consciousness
correct
this is all just explaining to people like you what the hard problem really is, why it's unsolved, and potential reasons for why it may or may not be solved under current cognitive capacities or require better ones
>>the hard problem of consciousness is still unsolved
>>Come on, science. I want to know why I am conscious.
yes, and we should absolutely scientifically investigate the hard problem of consciousness
but if you can't distinguish between trying to solve the hard problem of consciousness and a discussion that is just about the hard problem of consciousness, you have a severe cognitive deficit
>we should search the key both under the lamppost and in the darkness beyond
another blatantly false analogy
in the analogy, the person who lost the key knows they didn't lose it under the lamppost
in our case have absolutely no idea where the key is
also, it's not even workable for another reason, which is that what could be within our cognitive capacity to understand but isn't currently scientifically investigated doesn't have a clear equivalent in the analogy
there are essentially four overarching possibilities that must be accounted for:
1) the hard problem of consciousness is possible to solve within our current scientific paradigm
2) the hard problem of consciousness is not possible to solve within our current scientific paradigm, but possibly in a different paradigm that is within our cognitive capacity
3) the hard problem of consciousness is not possible to solve in any scientific paradigm that is within our current cognitive capacity, but is possible to solve within a scientific paradigm available to a more cognitively gifted group of entities (e.g. possibly a future more intelligent form of humanity)
4) the hard problem of consciousness is not possible to solve at all
trying to reduce this to the classic analogy you just falsely used is totally futile

[Anonymous No.15885850]

>>15885166
And yet if someone as cynical as you had a strong NDE you would come out of it unshakably convinced in the existence of the afterlife just like everyone else. There's something going on with those to be strong enough to defeat even contrarianism

[Anonymous No.15885853]

>>15885802
If you want to be so rigorous on a board full of autists and schizos who represent the saying:
>never play chess with a pigeon
>the pigeon just knocks all the pieces over
>then shits all over the board
>then struts around like it won
then I'll submit to your game allthough I still can't see the difference between postulating a different scientific paradigm and postulating magic and your model lacks a definition of 'solved'.

[Anonymous No.15885857]

>>15885850
>NDE
>trust me in my worst possible shape
>I know there's no magenta photons, always knew.

[Anonymous No.15885864]

>>15885857
>using contempt as a defensive mechanism
If being egoic is an ape delusion why do you cling to it so desperately

[Anonymous No.15885885]

>>15885853
>I still can't see the difference between postulating a different scientific paradigm and postulating magic
the only way you could ever make this claim reasonable in this context is by using "magic" in the Clarkian sense of " any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
in any other sense, as in something "magical" like in something religious or mystical, that's failing to understand what I'm saying at all
and I'm not postulating that any given one of the aforementioned possibilities are the case, just that they could all be possible, we simply don't know at this point
>your model lacks a definition of 'solved'
I'm not suggesting any model, so I have no idea what you're talking about here
if you're talking about the hard problem of consciousness, then it will be answered once we know why there is something it's like to be conscious

[Anonymous No.15885894]

>>15872597
Solved since 1991. Educate yourself.

[Anonymous No.15885896]

>>15885857
the talk about NDEs is indeed total nonsense, that much is certainly true, it's virtually impossible to gain any decent scientific information from that, at least not until it's studied scientifically more closely, but there are obvious problems with trying to study NDEs scientifically
however, there quite literally are no "magenta photons" even if you assume mainstream materialism
in fact, under those assumptions there aren't even any magenta photons in the sense of photons which when registered on the retina and translated into electrochemical signals in the brain result in the experience of magenta, because we know from cognitive science that that's not ultimately how the mind works at all, you can easily "trick" the mind into experiencing magenta even without any such photons at all being present through a wide variety of optical illusions
so it's definitely important to make the distinction between a photon, which while immaterial is still part of the physical models, and a quale like the experience of magenta, which is also immaterial, but something totally different from a photon

[Anonymous No.15885899]

>>15885894
very funny
if there's any book that really sums up the position of people who don't even understand what the hard problem of consciousness is, it has to be that one

[Anonymous No.15885952]

>>15885885
I think I speak for many wary, grumpy and tired physicalists on this board when I say that the discussion always seems to be led back to the same sleight of hand which is to keep shifting the goalposts by refusing to define even one criterium for what is considered a sufficient explanation for consciousness and by redefining supernatural thinking as a part of nature that science has yet to discover without making any contribution to such discovery and therefore wasting everyone's time.

If you keep functioning like a broken record I will save this post and spam every consciousness thread until the broken record is fixed.

[Anonymous No.15885994]

>>15885952
>physicalists
this is, as I mentioned earlier, a meaningless term, because everything is physical by definition
you can even have physicalist idealism
perhaps you wanted to refer to materialists instead, which would be more meaningful
>the discussion always seems to be led back to the same sleight of hand which is to keep shifting the goalposts by refusing to define even one criterium for what is considered a sufficient explanation for consciousness
it's not a refusal at all, it's an admission of the fact that we simply have absolutely zero idea what consciousness really is, and thus we don't even know what a good explanation would look like
the idea that you absolutely need a criterion like that is not scientific at all, because science works abductively, i.e. by looking at the evidence and proposing a set of possible explanations that fit that evidence, explanations which typically are developed intuitively, and then see which, if any, of those explanations really do fit all the data, and also do the deductive part of the abduction that is to see if new and unexpected observations under very specific circumstances that the hypothesis predicts also check out
in other words, the most general answer to what is considered a sufficient explanation for consciousness would be an explanation that not only accounts for everything we know about consciousness, but also predicts new facts pertaining to consciousness that we wouldn't have any chance of finding without such a theory
that is what it means for something to be a successful scientific explanation
at this point we have neither, which is what the hard problem of consciousness refers to
>redefining supernatural thinking as a part of nature
I haven't done anything like this at all
in fact, there's no such thing as anything "supernatural", everything is natural (which means the exact same thing as physical, the only difference being Latin and Greek roots respectively)

[Anonymous No.15886012]

>>15885952
>>15885994
>without making any contribution to such discovery
this is just a totally nonsensical way of thinking
discussing what the problem is, and making it clear for people like you and others that such a problem absolutely and definitely does exist, is very much a part of humanity's overall movement towards solving it, even though it's not immediately scientific in the sense of testing hypotheses, but that's absolutely not what this board is for, that's what research institutions are for, this is a place for discussion of science primarily (that's not to say it can't be a place for actively doing science, and some people do that too, but it's certainly not what the board primarily is for)
trying to hand-wave anything that isn't making an active scientific contribution as irrelevant in a scientific context is just a more long-winded way of saying the same thing as people have said earlier in the thread, which is closing your eyes and screaming "consciousness just is bro, there's no point in trying to explain it"
>wasting everyone's time
that's what you're doing by not actually discussing the subject matter, and instead spamming the same things over and over despite them having been addressed countless times
>If you keep functioning like a broken record
more rich irony, coming from the person who just tries to use the exact same dismissals of what's being discussed over and over again under different guises
>I will save this post
you're the one ruining the posts completely
>and spam every consciousness thread until the broken record is fixed
you're already doing that, and you're the broken record
hilarious

[Anonymous No.15886038]

hot controversial video just dropped:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9T8Eep5JKc
Zizek makes a vicious attack on Sabine Hossenfelder and says he started learning quantum physics. what is our response sabinesisters? is quantum physics the response for the current state of philosophy?

[Anonymous No.15886045]

>>15872597
consciousness is not real fuck off already with these stupid threads

[Anonymous No.15886074]

>>15885994
>because everything is physical by definition
There is experience. Part of experience is what I see, hear, smell, taste, touch. Other part of experience is thought. Some thoughts have a reference to what I can see etc. like a tree. Other thoughts don't have such reference. The word nothing has no reference to what I can see. Pink elephants neither. The word consciousness has no reference to anything else but experience but is abused in such a way to imply an invisible ghost. Physics = thoughts / models that describe the relationships between what I experience in a valid, reliable, accurate and replicable manner. Physics is agnostic about the ontology of things. You are pushing physics to mean that everything is made of stuff. That's a dishonest or ignorant strawman.
>>15885994
>materialists
No stop it already. That's an ontological assumption strawman projected on physics but also abused by ignorant lover boys of The Science (tm).

1/?

[Anonymous No.15886082]

>>15872597
It's already solved but NPCs keep looking past it

[Anonymous No.15886098]

>>15886082
>it's a choice
that's not science

[Anonymous No.15886108]

>>15886074
>There is experience. Part of experience is what I see, hear, smell, taste, touch.
that is all physical too, conscious experience is physical
everything is physical
"physical" does not mean "material"
that's why there exists positions like physicalist idealism (personally I think it's pointless to use the "physicalist" descriptor, since everything is physical by definition, but people do it)
>Other part of experience is thought.
all conscious experience is thought
perhaps you're thinking of inner voice or imagination, but that's all qualitatively the same as any other conscious experience
>Some thoughts have a reference to what I can see etc. like a tree. Other thoughts don't have such reference.
you can see anything you can imagine, so this doesn't really say much
whenever you dream, you are still seeing images, so a dream is also something you see, just like your imagination
>The word nothing has no reference to what I can see. Pink elephants neither.
your problem here is that you keep using "what I can see" to refer to "what can be objectively measured"
that's a very common problem when you don't really have a very good grasp on what consciousness really is
>The word consciousness has no reference to anything else but experience but is abused in such a way to imply an invisible ghost.
no, consciousness refers to the faculty by which experiences occur, that's a very important distinction, and crucial to understand the hard problem of consciousness
and very few people who discuss these matters use it in anything close to resembling such a way as what you claim in the latter part of that sentence
>Physics is agnostic about the ontology of things.
correct, and I've never implied anything else
>You are pushing physics to mean that everything is made of stuff. That's a dishonest or ignorant strawman.
total nonsense, and you're at this point not even distinguishing between "physics" and "physical", the latter doesn't just mean "pertaining to physics"

[Anonymous No.15886121]

>>15885994
>we simply have absolutely zero idea what consciousness really is
There are two fallacies: 1. a thought that has no reference to what we can observe and 2. pondering what things are rather than how they relate to eachother. So 1. what is consciousness other than what we can observe? There are colors, sounds, thoughts...where is consciousness? I've never seen such a thing. And 2. Everything is relational. What is a spoon is in empty space? You have to project a use onto it or a framework like chemistry, molecules or some sort of interpretation, representation or context. You seem to want to get to the thing-itself which Kant said is impossible. It's the contraditory question of how to perceive what's outside your perception. Okay so now you're a super intelligent enhanced perceptive being but then what's outside of that? Are we playing dragonball z here? What's beyond Frieza's, Cell's, Buu's power level and transformations?

2/?

[Anonymous No.15886130]

It's just a pseudo problem, or a fake problem. No real scientist takes it seriously. Just a rehash of the old mind body dualism which was already debunked by the mechanistic philosophy which every modern scientist accepts. Nothing new to see here, just some new age woo peddlers rediscovering dumb problems

[Anonymous No.15886138]

>>15886121
>two fallacies
there are no fallacies in anything I'm writing at all
I'm always very careful to make sure of that, and I'm the one spotting the fallacies in what you're writing, not the other way around here
>a thought that has no reference to what we can observe
what we observe is literally by definition always a thought
we never observe anything other than conscious experience
thus it is revealed that you're the one who doesn't really understand the terms you're using
perhaps you meant to say what can be objectively measured, just as I pointed out above, but that's something totally different than just what can be observed
>pondering what things are rather than how they relate to eachother
this is just something you keep repeating despite the fact that I've addressed it over and over again
fact is that what something is is always determined in terms of how it relates to something else, so trying to make that distinction is totally meaningless
you can never find any inherent essence to what anything is at its core, so what I mean when we don't have any clue what consciousness really is, I'm referring to how we don't have any idea how consciousness really relates to our models of everything else
that's what the hard problem of consciousness refers to, i.e. that our current models explain everything we can objectively measure from the observations we make, but totally leaves out the existence of consciousness itself, which needless to say must be included in any successful physical model of reality
if your physical model of reality doesn't explain consciousness and exactly how it relates to everything else, then it's obviously incomplete (and no, saying "it's just chemicals'n'sheeeit" is not an account of how it relates at all)
>There are colors, sounds, thoughts...where is consciousness? I've never seen such a thing.
like I explained earlier, you can perfectly well realize the existence of something despite it not being a direct object of experience

[Anonymous No.15886140]

>>15886108
We have a semantic misunderstanding because we want to use words like physics and physical in different ways. Anyway:
>>15886108
>consciousness refers to the faculty by which experiences occur
Disregard the word faculty. If you consider a question mark that results in consciousness you have already trapped yourself in a contradiction: you want to turn your head to see the back of your head with your own eyes. That's madness. Or analogous if you want to play the shadows game: if a square is a shadow of a cube than what is a cube a shadow of? A tesseract is madness and not even the thing-itself that you're looking for which is a pursuit beyond madness.

[Anonymous No.15886151]

>>15886121
>>15886138
>You seem to want to get to the thing-itself which Kant said is impossible.
don't get me started on Kant's work, which I clearly know orders of magnitude more about than you ever will
no, I'm not trying to get to the thing-in-itself here at all, and you don't even understand what that is
in fact, by that, which he referred to as the noumenon, he was referring to what we in modern terms think of as material, i.e. a posited realm independent of what we perceive, that we can never perceive directly, but which in some way or other informs our perceptions
Kant himself actually grew increasingly skeptical of the existence of such a realm over the course of his life, and in his later years he really doubted its existence and wrote over and over that we really could only address what was perceived
but that was his opinion, not necessarily what is true, and there's certainly evidence today that shows that it could really exist, but we don't really know
fact is that one can conceivably deduce the existence of something like that with sufficient scientific observations, just like you could conceivably use different shadows cast by a single object to deduce what that objects looks like, even without ever directly perceiving the object itself
this still remaining undetermined very much ties into the hard problem of consciousness remaining unsolved, because we don't even know whether or not consciousness is in fact just an emergent property of underlying material workings, or whether consciousness might be fundamental and anything material exclusively existing as an idea
>>15886130
you have zero idea what you're talking about
tons of neuroscientists and other cognitive scientists take that problem very seriously, and it's not even remotely close to a "rehash of the old mind-body dualism", because the hard problem of consciousness doesn't assume that materialism is true, some form of metaphysical idealism would be one possible solution to the problem

[Anonymous No.15886158]

>>15886151
>>You seem to want to get to the thing-itself which Kant said is impossible.
>don't get me started on Kant's work, which I clearly know orders of magnitude more about than you ever will
this seemed the like the beginning of a great philosophy cringe-pasta. should have fully committed to it anon

[Anonymous No.15886159]

>>15886138
>what we observe is literally by definition always a thought
>we never observe anything other than conscious experience
This is not a clear way of using language. With these words your invoking a variety of idealism but your goal is to define the hard problem. Is that problem independent from idealist assumptions?

[Anonymous No.15886160]

>>15886140
>We have a semantic misunderstanding because we want to use words like physics and physical in different ways.
you're trying to use "physical" to refer to "something pertaining to physics", but that's not how anyone uses the word
in fact, the diametric opposite is the case: "physics" is a scientific discipline which pertains to what's physical
>Disregard the word faculty.
you can't disregard a crucial part of the definition of consciousness
>If you consider a question mark that results in consciousness you have already trapped yourself in a contradiction: you want to turn your head to see the back of your head with your own eyes. That's madness.
now you're going totally off-track and not even making sense, presumably trying to deflect from being called out on things you don't really understand very well at all
nothing I'm doing is anything of the sort, because I'm not expecting to consciously experience consciousness itself, only the contents thereof
that doesn't mean you can't talk about consciousness itself, which is the faculty by which you are having those experiences in the first place
that's not even interesting in this context at all, this is about how one goes about relating this our physical models of what we experience, regardless of whether they're materialist or idealist or dualist
>Or analogous if you want to play the shadows game: if a square is a shadow of a cube than what is a cube a shadow of? A tesseract is madness and not even the thing-itself that you're looking for which is a pursuit beyond madness.
first of all, as I already mentioned in the other post above, you can absolutely use different shadows cast by the same object to piece together information about the object that must be casting it
sure, if at first you just see a square shadow, you don't know that much, but if you then see it smoothly transform in ways that would correspond to e.g. a cube moving in a certain way, then you've got yourself a testable scientific hypothesis

[Anonymous No.15886170]

>>15886158
>this seemed the like the beginning of a great philosophy cringe-pasta. should have fully committed to it anon
kek
well, it's true though
>>15886159
>This is not a clear way of using language.
the language is perfectly clear
your understanding, on the other hand...
not realizing that everything you observe by definition is a thought has more to do with the fact that "thought" is not clearly defined in any other way, and people use it to mean wildly different things because they don't really realize that any thought they have is not qualitatively different from any other conscious experience, like I just pointed out
if someone e.g. thinks of "thought" as a voice in their head, they don't realize that this voice in their head is just another conscious experience, in this case auditory imagination
>With these words your invoking a variety of idealism
totally false, not even remotely true
idealism would be claiming that what you experience is all there is, and there doesn't exist any noumenal material realm that informs the senses at all
that's not a claim I'm making
I'm just pointing out that regardless of whether you want to take a dualist or idealist stance, you only ever consciously perceive your experience, you never directly perceive whatever might be beyond perception and informing it even if you assume it does exist
>Is that problem independent from idealist assumptions?
yes, very much so, as I've repeated over and over again from the beginning
idealism would encompass a wide range of different explanations for the hard problem, but one could also imagine dualist solutions to the hard problem, it's simply not known because we really hardly know anything about consciousness at all, to the point where our physical models don't even include consciousness in them

[Anonymous No.15886173]

>>15886151
>you have zero idea what you're talking about
>tons of neuroscientists and other cognitive scientists take that problem very seriously, and it's not even remotely close to a "rehash of the old mind-body dualism", because the hard problem of consciousness doesn't assume that materialism is true, some form of metaphysical idealism would be one possible solution to the problem
Sorry but this is just nonsense. Like I said, no serious scientist considers this problem to be real. The "tons" of scientists you alluded to are probably youtube grifters

[Anonymous No.15886179]

>>15886173
>Sorry but this is just nonsense
it's not, it's completely coherent and meaningful, the opposite of nonsense
>Like I said, no serious scientist considers this problem to be real.
yeah, except the vast majority of serious scientists working in fields directly related to consciousness
>The "tons" of scientists you alluded to are probably youtube grifters
now that's what's total nonsense
try paying attention to what's going on in neuroscience and cognitive science in general, and maybe you'd start having a clue someday

[Anonymous No.15886185]

>>15886179
See, you fail to name any of these serious neuroscientists. Case closed. Gg. Try not getting gifted next time

[Anonymous No.15886186]

>some form of metaphysical idealism would be one possible solution to the problem
would be nice wouldn't it? isn't that why you insist on it? because "it would be nice"?
>I will never accept the true nature of reality if that invalidates all the bullshit we've told ourselves.
the state of humans

[Anonymous No.15886191]

>>15886160
>you can't disregard a crucial part of the definition of consciousness
What does the word faculty mean other than a question mark? The word seems to imply some construct instead of a process, a noun instead of a verb, thus seems to carry unexplained assumptions.
>>15886160
>I'm not expecting to consciously experience consciousness itself, only the contents thereof
Here we have a fundamental disagreement. To say content is to imply a container. How do you come to believe that there is such a thing?
>>15886160
>but if you then see it smoothly transform in ways that would correspond to e.g. a cube moving in a certain way, then you've got yourself a testable scientific hypothesis
If I give you the benefit of the doubt and you are not a larping schizo then I will admit that these are the borders of my intelligence. I have a hard time grasping academic level geometry so I will leave that level of thinking to professionals.

[Anonymous No.15886217]

>>15886185
>you fail to name any of these serious neuroscientists
I've already named one many times: Koch
but let me guess, he's not "serious" enough for you, right?
or maybe you want me to spoonfeed you more names so you don't have to actually look into what neuroscientists and other cognitive scientists are actually doing or thinking about?
intellectually lazy fools like you will never understand anything about any of this, might as well go and spam your nonsense somewhere else
>Case closed. Gg.
yeah, your inability to read makes it clear that you're totally lost here
nice try though
>>15886191
>What does the word faculty mean other than a question mark?
the word "faculty" means something completely from a question mark, the two aren't even in the same category
if you're trying to imply that we don't know if it exists, see below for my answer there
>The word seems to imply some construct instead of a process, a noun instead of a verb, thus seems to carry unexplained assumptions.
again, there's ultimately no difference between the two, because what something "is" can only be defined in terms of how it relates to something else
consciousness is described as a faculty in this context because it is that through which conscious experiences occur
>Here we have a fundamental disagreement. To say content is to imply a container. How do you come to believe that there is such a thing?
that's simply a matter of definition, hence why it's not interesting in this context at all, which I already pointed out
it's certainly got nothing to do with any fundamental disagreement, it's just a simple definition of "whatever means by which conscious experiences occur"
>If I give you the benefit of the doubt and you are not a larping schizo then I will admit that these are the borders of my intelligence. I have a hard time grasping academic level geometry so I will leave that level of thinking to professionals.
I've got a master's in computer engineering and have done a lot of geometry

[Anonymous No.15886248]

>>15886217
Yes, Koch, tononi, etc. are buffoons who have never done serious scientific work or produced anything of scientific value. You just proved my point that you're only listening to grifters. Back to school with you

[Anonymous No.15886253]

>>15886170
>the language is perfectly clear
It is not. You're confusing so many things here and your attitude of
>your understanding, on the other hand...
reveals that you're leaning on others to structure and make sense out of the mess you make. For example:
>thought they have is not qualitatively different from any other conscious experience
Extremely messy reasoning. The fact that thought is a different word from sound or sight already reveals that there is a difference. Ootherwise you might as well argue that pain = pleasure like a sadomasochist.
>not realizing that everything you observe by definition is a thought
Again an extremely messy way of reasoning because it can refer to any number of perspectives from Hoffman's case against reality to Hindu religion.

[Anonymous No.15886284]

>>15886248
thanks for confirming that you don't have any idea about what goes on in neuroscience or cognitive science at all
the only one who just proved someone's point here was you proving mine
I literally even predicted it
I'd tell you to go back to school, but clearly you've never been there in the first place
>>15886253
>It is not.
it is, it really is
everything I'm stating is formulated to be very precise
>You're confusing so many things here
I'm not confusing anything at all, you're the one who is clearly very confused
>you're leaning on others to structure and make sense out of the mess you make
again, totally false
fact is that no amount of me making clear and precise statements will make sense to you if you insist on trying to interpret them through a framework containing a lot of completely wrong assumptions, not to mention using words in ways that are not the way people use those words at all
>Extremely messy reasoning.
that wasn't "reasoning", just a plain statement, and it was exceedingly clear
to make it even clearer: there is no qualitative difference between what you see when you're awake and have your eyes open and what you see during a dream, or what you see when you imagine something or even hallucinate something
qualitatively the experience of seeing all those things are exactly the same, the only difference between them is the context in which the experiences occur
>The fact that thought is a different word from sound or sight already reveals that there is a difference.
I already explained that
what it means is that people's common intuitions about cognition don't reflect what's actually going on, hence why they have such different notions of what "thought" is
>Otherwise you might as well argue that pain = pleasure like a sadomasochist.
not true, a thought being qualitatively the same as some other conscious experience does not mean pain is the same thing as pleasure
>an extremely messy way of reasoning
again, not "reasoning", statement of fact

[Anonymous No.15886296]

>>15886284
You're happy that you predicted what I had already told you earlier? Gee, no wonder you get grifted so easily

[Anonymous No.15886312]

>>15886296
>You're happy that you predicted what I had already told you earlier?
who said I was "happy" about predicting it?
predicting what idiots like you are going to say is very standard fare, not exactly anything to get emotionally involved in
and the prediction was specifically about how you would resort to undermining the expertise of any neuroscientist I'd mention and try to trash talk them because it's a lot more comfortable doing that from your armchair than it is to actually spend time learning about what cognitive scientists actually do and think

[Anonymous No.15886397]

>>15886284
>there is no qualitative difference between what you see when you're awake and have your eyes open and what you see during a dream, or what you see when you imagine something or even hallucinate something
I can't see what you're saying. At all. Again: you're assuming some framework here like a (metaphorical) brain-in-a-vat which is self-defeating. You may also refer to Chinese Chad who was dreaming that he was a butterfly and the butterfly in his dream was dreaming his life. Or maybe you refer to Inception. Again you propose a sort of Klein bottle: you spin me right round baby right round like a record baby right round round round.

There is experience. We describe relationships between things we experience. What more do we need? We don't necessarily arrive at The Truth that way. So what?

[Anonymous No.15886430]

>>15886397
>I can't see what you're saying.
at this point you're just being intentionally dense, in that case
that was beyond exceedingly clear, it was clear as crystal
completely limpid
the experience of vision is the same qualitative experience regardless of context
if you hallucinate something, that's still a visual experience
if you imagine something, that's still a visual experience
if you have a dream, that's still a visual experience
it's abundantly clear
those are all qualitatively the same type of experience, namely visual experience, only the contexts are different
>Again: you're assuming some framework here like a (metaphorical) brain-in-a-vat which is self-defeating.
like I've already told you, that's blatantly false
I'm not assuming anything whatsoever, just stating a plain fact, which is that visual experience is qualitatively the same regardless of the context in which it occurs and what type of visual experience you classify it as
>You may also refer to Chinese Chad who was dreaming that he was a butterfly and the butterfly in his dream was dreaming his life. Or maybe you refer to Inception.
Zhuangzi's butterfly dream is not what I'm getting at at all, no, because that pertains more to a questioning of what exactly is the fundamentally true objective being
it is at best only marginally related to what I'm saying, and the same is true for Inception, not what I'm explaining either
>There is experience.
correct, obviously
>We describe relationships between things we experience.
that is indeed among the things we do
>What more do we need?
we need to account for the fact that there is experience in the first place
that's exactly the problem of contemporary physical models and the heart of the hard problem of consciousness, namely that those models only account for the relationships between what we experience, and don't account for experience itself, despite the fact that the existence of experience is the very foundation of all of it

[Anonymous No.15886571]

>>15886430
>at this point you're just being intentionally dense
I reallly am not. I can't accept
>if you hallucinate something, that's still a visual experience
because there are obvious differences between hallucinations and non-hallucinations. Two differences are 1. hallucinations are less consistent and 2. hallucinations are disputed by other parts of my experience. Therefore they can not be of the same quality. It may very well be that there's a brain that can generate an experience with or without a stimulus eeven without assuming an external world. If solipsism is true then there is still a hierarchy of more or less valid, reliable, accurate and replicable experience.

There is a difference between
>everything we perceive is an experience
>everything we perceive is made out of experience or within experience or an aspect of experience
We keep coming back to this. I get that there is a difference between the seeing of a camera and the seeing of a human. I just don't agree to fill that gap with qualia.
>>15886430
>we need to account for the fact that there is experience in the first place
That I do agree with. Why not a universe without experience? The first time pondering such a question causes similar strange feelings like imagining going to sleep and never waking up.

[Anonymous No.15886596]

>>15886571
>I reallly am not.
you are, because at this point what I'm saying is near the point of not being possible to be made any clearer
>there are obvious differences between hallucinations and non-hallucinations
not qualitatively
they are both visual experiences
the differences between them are contextual, and have nothing to do with the quality of the experience itself
>Two differences are 1. hallucinations are less consistent and 2. hallucinations are disputed by other parts of my experience.
again, this is entirely contextual and has nothing to do with the quality of the experience itself
>Therefore they can not be of the same quality.
wrong, because you're trying to conflate the quality of the experience with the context of the experience
>It may very well be that there's a brain that can generate an experience with or without a stimulus even without assuming an external world. If solipsism is true then there is still a hierarchy of more or less valid, reliable, accurate and replicable experience.
none of this has anything to do with what I'm saying at all, something I've also made abundantly clear already
I'm talking about something that pertains exclusively to experience itself regardless of its sources or origins
>There is a difference between
>>everything we perceive is an experience
>>everything we perceive is made out of experience or within experience or an aspect of experience
this is totally meaningless and also has exactly zero to do with what I'm saying, this is more of the "deflecting via nonsense" tactic
>I get that there is a difference between the seeing of a camera and the seeing of a human.
this is not only completely off-topic, but is also a categorical mistake, even in your own terms
>I just don't agree to fill that gap with qualia.
the word "qualia" just refers to the constituent parts of conscious experience, such as a specific color being a given quale
this is just a matter of definition, there is no "gap" being filled anywhere here

[Anonymous No.15886713]

>>15886596
>you're trying to conflate the quality of the experience with the context of the experience
Let's discover how a quality is defined:
>google
>the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.
Seems contextual but let's try another definition to be fair.
>a distinctive attribute or characteristic possessed by someone or something
Seems ontological. Alas experience doesn't exist. Colors exist. Sounds exist. Thoughts exist. Dreams exist. Experience does not exist. Now what is a distinctive attribute of a chair, the chairness of a chair? Isn't that age old mental masturbation? Is it the material it's made of? How a chair is used? Hey there's the context again. Maybe you're looking for a unifying attribute of things that exist: both colors and sounds help survival. Quality found case closed. No?

[Anonymous No.15886731]

>>15886713
So I just remembered a previous thread about the hard problem that boiled down to: why does anything exist at all? What makes the chair exist? That's just too much to ask.

[Anonymous No.15886766]

>>15886713
>Seems ontological.
this is, again, just another meaningless deflection
there's nothing "ontological" about the fact that visual experiences are qualitatively the same regardless of context
in fact, often during such experiences people don't even have any idea that it's a different context at all, and only realize it after the fact (i.e. when you don't know that you're dreaming or hallucinating, and believe yourself to be awake and having a regular visual experience), because the visual experience is exactly that no matter whether it's in the context of a dream, hallucination, or imagination, or what you'd think of as being awake
note however that it's not necessary for any given person to have such an experience to understand this, it's just to illustrate what it means for an experience to be qualitatively the same as another despite occurring in very different contexts
>Alas experience doesn't exist.
this is even more total nonsense
at this point you're just deflecting
>Colors exist. Sounds exist. Thoughts exist. Dreams exist.
all of this is part of experience
>Experience does not exist.
see, now you're beyond trying to act dense, now you're just pretending to be stupid
you're also literally explicitly contradicted what you said earlier here: >>15886397
>There is experience. We describe relationships between things we experience. What more do we need? We don't necessarily arrive at The Truth that way. So what?
see that?
>>There is experience.
that's quoting you verbatim
quit playing dumb
>Now what is a distinctive attribute of a chair, the chairness of a chair?
totally irrelevant to the point
>Is it the material it's made of?
at this point it's starting to get funny watching you blunder into contradicting yourself all over the place
>a unifying attribute of things that exist
that's not it either, because as explained at length earlier we can't be sure whether experience is all that exists, but by definition it's all we can ever perceive

[Anonymous No.15886843]

>>15886766
Quality of experience is a nonsensical word salad and you dedicated a whole post evading my criticism of said nonsense. At this point the discussion has degenerated into
>no u

Now to address your accusation that I'm contradicting myself:
>1. experience does not exist
>2. there is experience
Yes I made both statements. Your trolling is sophisticated and strangely humorous I have to admit but this is not the checkmate you were rubbing your hands for. Obviously I used the same word in different ways. In the second case the word is used as an abstract container to refer to every single thing that we can observe similar to how we use the word life to refer to every single form of life but there's no evidence that life exists independent of form like a Platonic ideal. That exemplifies the first case: there's no evidence that experience exists independent of form like a Platonic ideal.

[Anonymous No.15886847]

>>15886843
Of course you will troll me by saying what does a Platonic ideal refer to if it doesn't exist you clever bastard.

[Anonymous No.15886863]

>>15886847
Well this refers to a thread I made the other day
>>>15882860
>We are comparing an experience and even thoughts with a hidden, unconscious model, so it seems to me

[Anonymous No.15886865]

>>15886843
>Quality of experience is a nonsensical word salad and you dedicated a whole post evading my criticism of said nonsense.
it absolutely isn't and I've explained exactly what it refers to
now I see you're going past even pretending to be stupid, clearly you have a hard time acknowledging all the fundamental mistakes in your reasoning that have been laid bare, including literally quoting you where you blatantly contradict yourself because you can't even keep track of your own statements
>At this point the discussion has degenerated into
>>no u
not even remotely the case, like earlier in the thread I keep explaining everything, with increasing clarity too I might add, whereas all you're doing is pretending not to understand so that you can avoid acknowledging that you're clueless, to the point where you'll literally rather outright contradict yourself than admit it
>to address your accusation that I'm contradicting myself
it's not an "accusation", it's a pointing out of
if your contradiction was somehow veiled that type of statement could work, but when you literally say
>there is experience
and then follow up with
>experience does not exist
you're not exactly making it into a situation where I have to "accuse" you of anything, I can just point to it
it's like finding the murderer holding the handle of the knife that still plunged into the victim's back
>Yes I made both statements.
yeah, I know, I literally pointed out that glaring contradiction just now
>Your trolling
yeah, priceless
I literally school you on everything, most of which you're totally clueless about, and then point out where you blatantly contradict yourself, but somehow I'm the one who is "trolling"
of course, naturally
>this is not the checkmate you were rubbing your hands for
what is it with all this dumb projection of emotion?
I just pointed it out because it was extremely obvious that you weren't even trying
it was not meant as a "checkmate", just to show that you're clearly just trolling

[Anonymous No.15886943]

>>15886865
>I literally school you on everything
Then school me on the question where ideas come from, what do ideas reference and which came first: the ideas or the references?

[Anonymous No.15886982]

>>15886943
By the way I just realized that this is related to linguistic relativity versus innate ideas.

[Anonymous No.15887864]

>>15872597
Hard problem of this planet is not conciousness, but retards who are asking stupid questions.

BECAUSE YOU ARE. DUMBFUCK!

Really, why do you think everything happens out of reason? When you look at humanity it seems like purely irrational set of thinking that doesn't even seems to grasp a little bit of reason.

[Barkun No.15887888]

Implying you 'solve' what consciousness is. Perhaps is immaterial, in that there is no 'solidified answer', but instead it is measured extrinsically as 'how it is'-indirectly, not 'what it is'-directly. It is a sum of a certified state manifest through a dimensional fold.

[Anonymous No.15887889]

>>15872597
science will never tell you why, only how

[Barkun No.15887897]

>>15887888
In other words the universe state is meant for conscious experience.

[Anonymous No.15889760]

>>15872597
My best guess is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brains collective functions

What you really want to know is the answer to the vertiginous question.

[Barkun No.15889763]

>>15889760
Meds.

[Anonymous No.15889765]

Low IQ gaytheist subhuman thread. reminder: atheists cannot say they objectively exist - there is no proof according to their world view.

[Anonymous No.15889807]

>>15889760
>vertiginous question.
I can sense a religious theme in that question. You could've been a duck, your favorite rockstar, a cavewoman, an immortal AI replicating all over the universe etc. but strangely you seem to be in the middle of everything and everyone: a goldilocks situation like the anthropic principle. It's almost as if you're special by coincidence. That's why I think this Anon said:
>>15889763
>Meds.

Now I can see why you're skeptical about such accusation of mental illness. After all: aren't (((666 they 666))) hell bent on demoralizing you? They tell you that you are nothing but a cancer on this planet. So the opposite must be true, right?
Who knows. But see how your question is very much an artefact of culture.

[Anonymous No.15889820]

>>15887864
>When you look at humanity it seems like purely irrational
nope, makes perfect sense. it's always about money and power, and when it isn't, it's stupidity.
money power and stupidity accurately describe the state of things

[Anonymous No.15889826]

>>15889820
The irony of this post. It's too much to bare. I saw a woman riding a dog in a baby stroller. I can't take it anymore.

[Anonymous No.15889843]

>>15889826
the comment I replied to said
>it seems like purely irrational
read my reply faggot. it implies that retardness at most augments psychos results in the quest of power. pack it all up and it seems
>like purely irrational
but you are too retarded to get finer points. you are one of the idiots augmenting everything to pure idiocy level

[Anonymous No.15889858]

>>15889843
>finer points
You dispute a claim that has zero nuance with another claim that has zero nuance

[Anonymous No.15889862]

>>15889858
there's not much nuance to the issue. psychopats know that humans accept "it's just stupidity" argument. many times it is, and is the perfect spot to hide for psychos doing shit.
I come from a country who perfected mixing stupidity with psychopaths stealing shit for power. it's literally a FUCKING ART and it's called politics. the best you make it look like an accident/stupidity the easier you get away with it.
I'm not saying it's not stupidity, I'm saying it's not always stupidity, especially if someone is making something out of the situation. it's as simple as

[Anonymous No.15889890]

>>15889862
>there's not much nuance
From your perspective. In my view it's debatable if we can know our own motivations let alone other people's motivations. How do I know if the story I tell myself about my motivations is true?

[Anonymous No.15889894]

>>15889890
I know there's a serious amount of people who are insanely good at coming up with justifications for doing the shit they are doing. that is certain. debatable if an obscure minority of them do have a point, at certain rare times.

[Anonymous No.15890009]

>>15889894
We're on /sci/, in a philosophy of conciousness thread even, and you seem to be anwering my question in a /pol/ context. We're all explaining why we do what we do. Some argue that our explanations are made to fit social expectations for survival and reproduction benefit. However it appears to be the case that people can act and explain in ways that don't seem to benefit survival and reproduction. What bothers me is a way of reasoning that assumes the conclusion:
>if I see people act and explain in ways that don't seem to benefit survival and reproduction
>then that must be for survival and reproduction benefit somehow
>because I assume people act and explain in ways that benefit survival and reproduction

Now we arrive at pessimistic writers who either argue that art is for survival and reproduction benefit or a distraction from suffering. Again: how do we know?

[Anonymous No.15890073]

>>15890009
people do a bunch of shit for a PS5. people loose sight of certain goals, develop others. trade goals for others. it's not simple, it's not something that fits all. and that's not even going into brain disease, coping mechanisms and bunch of other bullshit.
you're asking for something which is quite complicated to be answered.

[Anonymous No.15890571]

>>15879566
To bad.. i stoped caryng what you think the momment you said you would have sense experience after even after eliminating your senses.

[Anonymous No.15890657]

>>15872597
Your problem comes from the crashing down of your expectations, science is only relational and you ask of absolutes, good luck.

[Anonymous No.15890724]

>>15874013
It's the only question that matters